You are here
Fire, Smoke, and Snowballs
Saturday, October 6th, 2012
Robert Wechsler
It's valuable to put government ethics in the larger context of the
use of public office for private purposes that does not involve a
financial benefit for anyone. In other words, much of politics is
personal. A
review in this weekend's New York Times Book Review got me
thinking about this. The book, by Seth Rosenfeld, is entitled Subversives;
the reviewer is Matt Taibbi.
Rosenfeld spent thirty years getting hold of FBI files on its surveillance of the University of California at Berkeley, especially in the 1960s. What is apparent is how much of the policy behind this surveillance originated not in the public interest of preventing Communist infiltration of Berkeley's important scientific laboratories, but rather in petty, personal attempts to seek revenge. For example, thirty agents were assigned to find out who had written an entrance exam question about the FBI that J. Edgar Hoover found offensive (this was in 1959!).
Or, as the reviewer writes, the book highlights "the vanity and stupidity of political leaders of any persuasion who squander public resources spying on personal enemies and obsessing over personal hangups — and the frightening weakness of the laws designed to restrain their authority."
It isn't just that allowing politics to be personal leads to ethical misconduct. Ethical misconduct requires that politics be personal. Ethical misconduct requires secrecy, circling the wagons, intimidation, dishonesty, denials, and personal attacks on anyone seen to be capable of making the misconduct public or getting the public to understand what is wrong with it.
Ethical misconduct is often fire that, even though it is behind closed doors, is seen by the public only in the form of smoke. But the smoke isn't from the fire, at least not directly. It's a smokescreen to hide the fact that there is a fire. It's a smokescreen intended to make it look like the fire is somewhere else. And the smokescreen can be especially effective when those spreading the smoke truly believe it is somewhere else.
To those involved in creating a cover-up, it can seem like an honest crusade against a horrific enemy. This is what happens when politics becomes personal. It's not just about keeping secrets. It's also about justifying one's actions and those of one's colleagues and supervisors, that is, those who will determine one's career. And demonizing those who threaten to bring you down. Cover-ups raise all sorts of ugly psychological processes.
Ethical misconduct becomes more and more personal, more and more justifiable, when people think it may be uncovered. And it places pressure on others to engage in additional ethical misconduct. It can be like a snowball rolling downhill, to the point where no colleague has the courage to speak out even privately, or vote independently. It makes everyone complicit, even those who are merely trying to stay out of it.
There is no staying out of it. There is only the self-justification that it isn't one's responsibility. If one is a government official, one has a duty not to stay out of it.
In this way, ethical misconduct co-opts and corrupts others. This is the worst thing about it. And it is why it is so important to have a good, independent government ethics program, not just to enforce the laws, but to stop the snowball from rolling downhill and to prevent politicians from being able to create a smokescreen, or believe they can. No ethics policy can do this. Only a full-fledged ethics program can.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
Rosenfeld spent thirty years getting hold of FBI files on its surveillance of the University of California at Berkeley, especially in the 1960s. What is apparent is how much of the policy behind this surveillance originated not in the public interest of preventing Communist infiltration of Berkeley's important scientific laboratories, but rather in petty, personal attempts to seek revenge. For example, thirty agents were assigned to find out who had written an entrance exam question about the FBI that J. Edgar Hoover found offensive (this was in 1959!).
Or, as the reviewer writes, the book highlights "the vanity and stupidity of political leaders of any persuasion who squander public resources spying on personal enemies and obsessing over personal hangups — and the frightening weakness of the laws designed to restrain their authority."
It isn't just that allowing politics to be personal leads to ethical misconduct. Ethical misconduct requires that politics be personal. Ethical misconduct requires secrecy, circling the wagons, intimidation, dishonesty, denials, and personal attacks on anyone seen to be capable of making the misconduct public or getting the public to understand what is wrong with it.
Ethical misconduct is often fire that, even though it is behind closed doors, is seen by the public only in the form of smoke. But the smoke isn't from the fire, at least not directly. It's a smokescreen to hide the fact that there is a fire. It's a smokescreen intended to make it look like the fire is somewhere else. And the smokescreen can be especially effective when those spreading the smoke truly believe it is somewhere else.
To those involved in creating a cover-up, it can seem like an honest crusade against a horrific enemy. This is what happens when politics becomes personal. It's not just about keeping secrets. It's also about justifying one's actions and those of one's colleagues and supervisors, that is, those who will determine one's career. And demonizing those who threaten to bring you down. Cover-ups raise all sorts of ugly psychological processes.
Ethical misconduct becomes more and more personal, more and more justifiable, when people think it may be uncovered. And it places pressure on others to engage in additional ethical misconduct. It can be like a snowball rolling downhill, to the point where no colleague has the courage to speak out even privately, or vote independently. It makes everyone complicit, even those who are merely trying to stay out of it.
There is no staying out of it. There is only the self-justification that it isn't one's responsibility. If one is a government official, one has a duty not to stay out of it.
In this way, ethical misconduct co-opts and corrupts others. This is the worst thing about it. And it is why it is so important to have a good, independent government ethics program, not just to enforce the laws, but to stop the snowball from rolling downhill and to prevent politicians from being able to create a smokescreen, or believe they can. No ethics policy can do this. Only a full-fledged ethics program can.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
- Robert Wechsler's blog
- Log in or register to post comments
Comments
Kenneth Stepp (not verified) says:
Mon, 2012-10-08 06:39
Permalink
Robert
May I use this?
"Ethical misconduct is often fire that, even though it is behind closed doors, is seen by the public only in the form of smoke. But the smoke isn't from the fire, at least not directly. It's a smokescreen to hide the fact that there is a fire. It's a smokescreen intended to make it look like the fire is somewhere else. And the smokescreen can be especially effective when those spreading the smoke truly believe it is somewhere else."
Thanks,
Kenneth
Robert Wechsler says:
Mon, 2012-10-08 10:27
Permalink
My book and blog posts are free for non-commercial use, so long as there is attribution.